On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 00:25 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 05:59:17PM -0600, Jory A. Pratt wrote: > > Mark Loeser wrote: > > > Basically what I'm looking for here is an easy to understand explanation > > > of > > > what textrels are, why they are bad, and why they should hold back > > > marking a > > > package stable. The only information I've been able to find states that > > > they > > > could cause a performance hit, but this doesn't seem to warrant banning > > > them > > > completely in my eyes. > > > > > > Getting a clear cut policy on exactly what issues should hold a package > > > back > > > from being marked stable is what I'm looking for. Issues like textrels, > > > executable stacks, etc is what I'm looking for to be defined and > > > explained why > > > we are to always avoid them. This should be added to existing > > > documentation > > > policy so it is somewhere for new devs to know about, and existing devs to > > > have for a reference. > > > > Only problem I see with this is binary packages. We can not control > > upstream binaries as everyone is aware of. So when does it become safe > > to override stable packages that have texrel's and executable stacks? > > no idea what you mean by "override", but here's a crazy idea ... ask > upstream to fix the issues. for example, we just reported executable > stacks with the ut2004 game and Ryan of epicgames was so kind as to > fix it up for us. some upstream peeps dont even know about these sort > of things until you point them out.
Actually, it is not fixed yet. Ryan is aware of the issue, but it was not fixed in the latest version. There was an error on my part that made me think it was fixed. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
